Skip to main content

Government support killing of children to get release of soldiers

John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD): I thank the Secretary of State for her comments in respect of what the Government wish to see. Why would they not wish to see a ceasefire without the return of the soldiers?
Margaret Beckett: Everyone wants to see a cessation of violence as soon as possible. Many of the other routes that one could urge—the international community is urging them, and exploring and trying to develop them, and looking at the detail—will take time. It will be complicated and difficult to work them out and to pursue them. Releasing kidnapped soldiers is not difficult at all, and takes no time at all.

This was yesterday's exchange. The UN report that a third of the deaths in Lebanon are children. The government do not support a ceasefire until the kidnapped soldiers are returned.

Failing to support a ceasefire in this situation is in essence supporting the consequences of military action until such a stage as the kidnapped soldiers are released viz the killing of the children.

It is quite clear, therefore, that the government support the killing of children in Lebanon until such a stage as the soldiers are released.

Previously the government have argued.

  1. That they would not call for just one side to stop firing
  2. They could not influence Hezbollah
  3. They cannot control Israel
It is, however, quite clear as a result of the answer to my question that they actually do support the continuation of violence and its collateral damage

(update at 8.42 - I have just heard the government calling for a "Sustainable Ceasefire" on the TV. Their definition of "sustainable", clearly is one whereby the soldiers have been returned. This really shows how bad the TV are at holding the government to account. Jeremy Paxman, one presumes, would ask: "do you believe this" rather than "define sustainable".)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Its the long genes that stop working

People who read my blog will be aware that I have for some time argued that most (if not all) diseases of aging are caused by cells not being able to produce enough of the right proteins. What happens is that certain genes stop functioning because of a metabolic imbalance. I was, however, mystified as to why it was always particular genes that stopped working. Recently, however, there have been three papers produced: Aging is associated with a systemic length-associated transcriptome imbalance Age- or lifestyle-induced accumulation of genotoxicity is associated with a generalized shutdown of long gene transcription and Gene Size Matters: An Analysis of Gene Length in the Human Genome From these it is obvious to see that the genes that stop working are the longer ones. To me it is therefore obvious that if there is a shortage of nuclear Acetyl-CoA then it would mean that the probability of longer Genes being transcribed would be reduced to a greater extent than shorter ones.